CubsWin

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous. 88-89-79-66-(80 something). Hendry didn't lift a team out of an extended doldrums like Dombrowski; and, if he did, he returned them three seasons later. What does it take to get people to read before they respond around here. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) That's what I'm saying. Judging a GM on his won-loss record alone is a terrible idea. You think Dombrowski is a better GM than Hendry is. I have no problem with that. I would love to have him as Cubs GM. But Dombrowski's won-loss record is terrible with the Tigers. Much worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. I don't think Dave is a worse GM, do you?

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very good team that's well-positioned for the future. Hendry took over a team that had won 88 games the previous year. Since then he hired Dusty Baker, who was an outright disaster and who was at least partly responsible for major injuries to two very good young pitchers. He's built a team that is 3 games above .500 in a terrible division, in a weak National League. He's also got several very large contracts which may hinder the options available to the team in the future. Dombrowski inherited a team that had lost 106 games, had bad players and little promise for the future. He's turned them into a very good team with some of the best young talent in the game - a team that should be playoff contenders for years to come. They're 13 games over .500 in a pretty good division, in what's considered by just about everybody to be the superior league. The very large contracts that the Tigers have are Mags - that one expires in 2009 if the Tigers choose not to exercise his options, Sheffield (expires in '09), Carlos Guillen (expires in 2011, but $12M a year for his production is probably a bargain) and Bonderman (4 years, $38M - who wouldn't take that?) So Dombrowski has taken a worse product and turned it into a better team with a better outlook for the future. Simple and ridiculous. That's exactly my point. Go back and re-read the post you are responding to. I would take Dombrowski as the Cubs GM in a heartbeat and yet his won-loss record at Detroit is abysmal. Way worse than Hendry's is with the Cubs. So should we rely solely on won-loss record when judging a GM? Is that the be all end all stat that says it all? No, of course not. That argument is simple and ridiculous.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so. While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly. It is an extreme over-simplification. Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous. 1. Hendry's job includes drafting, signing and trading for the players that make up the roster. He is SOLELY responsible for what players make up the team. He also hires the manager. Holding a GM responsible for wins and losses is the correct thing to do, seeing as that's the GM's job. There is no one else to blame -- if the players or manager were bad, you must look to who hired them. 2.. The Cubs were not that much worse before Hendry took over. Hendry took over in July 2002 so this is his fifth full year on the job. His teams are now 384-385. The previous five years, including 2002 (which obviously wasn't his team) the Cubs were 377-434. The winning percentages are .499 to .465. So, the club was marginally worse, but Hendry certainly worked no miracles. Plus, this ignores the fact that Hendry was helped by youngsters like Zambrano and Prior waiting in the wings and the yearly payroll increases. 3. The Cubs suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key star players? Does this mean Wood and Prior? Young pitcher get hurt, every team deals with this. Every team deals with injuries. Prior's injuries certainly have been flukish, though Hendry waited to long for a backup plan. However, Wood has always battled injuries and further DL-time should have come as no surprise. 4. I really, really don't think the Sosa contract hindered the club much at all. Sure, it likely didn't help, but every team has a player making too much money. This money could've easily been made up by not signing crappy replacement level players to multi-million dollar deals. Oh, and even in his last year with the Cubs, Sosa was productive with a 110 OPS+. 5. 88-89-79-66. Those are the Cubs wins totals in Hendry's tenure. That's an ugly trend. Now, of course, the win total will increase this year, but, sheesh, how could it not with the amount of money Hendry was allowed to throw around in the offseason? And, even with the spending money, the team is barely over .500 in a middling division. So you truly believe that a GM should be solely judged on his won-loss record?

That's more damning towards MacPhail and espec. Lynch rather than praise towards Hendry, IMO. He took over a team that was a 90 loss team with a very good farm system (which he is partially responsible for building). That means there's been improvement, but not success. I wouldn't qualify the last 5 years as successful or progressive. Agreed. Improvement doesn't equal success. He definitely improved the team and their chances of winning, but he probably could have done a lot more had he made better, more informed choices on a lot of things. His and his team's success has been limited. Some of that is clearly his fault. Some of it isn't.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous. Detroit was a train wreck and they're now a very... Eh, no, sorry. Stop right there. The only thing that matters is the won-loss record of the team during that GM's tenure. :P

Agree. He is neither terrible nor great. He's made some really bad moves and some really good ones. Probably more good than bad. I agree that he abdicated way too much authority to Baker. That was totally his fault and Cubs fans have paid the price for it. Has he improved the Cubs roster over his tenure? Yes. Without a doubt. That should carry a lot of weight in determining what kind of job he has done as the Cubs GM. Certainly a whole lot more weight than the team's won-loss record. Is he the kind of GM I want running the Cubs? I think they could definitely do better.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. So what kind of job would you say Dave Dombrowski has done with the Detroit Tigers? I would take Dombrowski as GM of the Cubs any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but if we judged him the same way you are judging Hendry, our analysis would tell us to stay far, far away. Never mind that Dombrowski took an organization that was losing terribly and turned them into a team that went to the World Series last year and is currently leading their division this year. His won-loss record during his tenure at Detroit is 403-527. That's 124 games under .500!!!! OMG!!!! Simple and ridiculous.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... Excuses excuses excuses. Record vs resources. It's simple because that's all that matters. Excuse away, and you'll just keep getting the same results. The Cubs seem to be getting different results from last season, don't they? And '06 seems to be a vastly different result from '03 and '04. If Hendry were the lone reason why the Cubs won the amount of games they did and if he were really as bad as you say he is, then wouldn't they be consistently mediocre? If we are supposed to be getting the same result, why have the Cubs been so close to winning it all and then so far away from it during his tenure? If something is simple here, it's your argument which doesn't seem to hold up under the lightest scrutiny.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away... It's not an oversimplification; it's the only thing that matters. Winning is the bottom line, and Hendry's teams have not done so. While it is true that winning is the only thing that matters, to hold one person solely responsible for the win-loss record of a team, especially one that was so much worse before he took it over, one that suffered an unusual amount of injuries to key, star players and one that had a quickly declining superstar making a ton of money from a contract that Hendry did not give him, is really rather silly. It is an extreme over-simplification. Does that mean that I think he is a great GM? No. But using this team's won-loss record as the lone justification for how well it's GM did is simple and ridiculous.

Lots of unusually debilitating injuries to major stars for a few of those seasons make looking only at the team's won-loss record an obviously overly simplistic way of judging the job Jim Hendry's done. That said, over simplify away...

the point of the thread is...ahh, nevermind. ](*,) My problem with the thread is... dark times? What's so dark about 'em? See two posts above your's for the answer.

the point of the thread is...ahh, nevermind. ](*,)

That's the point. Sure being a half game out of the division isn't a "dark time," but we lost a couple bad games in a row, you'd never know it around here. Thanks, that was the point. Of course, these aren't dark times, its a joke and a commentary on the mood of this board the last week.

Here are 8 reasons for optimism: 1. Jason Kendall Since joining the Cubs he has put up a line of .286/.385/.393/.778 with more walks (7) than Ks (6) in 56 ABs. This is consistent with his career line of .293/.375/.394/.769 with 576 walks against 529 strikeouts. For his career, Kendall's OPS is 40 points higher in the 2nd half. On a side note, since joining the Padres, Barrett has hit .230/.238/.290 with 16 strikeouts and 1 walk. 2. Jacque Jones Since getting more regular playing time in July, he is hitting .333 in 90 ABs with 10 walks and only 8 strikeouts. He has driven in 16 runs in 21 starts since the all-star break. Jones's career OPS is 28 points higher in the 2nd half. 3. Bob Howry Since the all-star break, Howry has allowed 2 runs in 14.1 innings, striking out 16 while walking only 2. That's an ERA of 1.26 and a WHIP of 0.84. For those of you rightfully worried about sample size, in his last 33 appearances (34 innings) dating back to May 27th, he has an ERA of 2.65 and a WHIP of 0.97. 4. Kerry Wood Kerry is unscored upon in his first 3 outings and has displayed very good, Kerry Wood-like stuff. No one knows how long he can keep that up, but 3 2/3 scoreless innings can't be seen as a reason for pessimism, can it? 5. The emergence of Carlos Marmol Those three righties can close out a lot of games for the Cubs down the stretch. That's not a bad back-end of the pen. And their presence gives Lou three more reasons to avoid Dempster and three more reasons for Dempster to get back on track or lose his job. 6. The Riot Those of us who said the more he hits the worse he gets should look again. After slumping for 5 weeks (May 16-June 23), Ryan is back in a big way hitting .351 over his last 134 ABs. In that span he has walked 16 times while striking out only 8 times, stealing 8 bases while getting caught only twice and scoring 31 runs in his last 34 starts. 7. The return of Derrek Lee's power stroke Despite slumping pretty badly, Lee has hit 6 HRs in the first 22 post-ASB games. That's a 40+ HR per year pace. That's what we expected of him from the start. The Cubs needed to add a power bat at the deadline. Maybe they got him at the all-star break and didn't even know it. 8. Lou Piniella is not Dusty Baker Nuff said. Hope that brightens the mood a little bit after a horrible series in Houston. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the Cubs are a half game out of first place with 48 left to play. There. There's nine. :P

Lord knows, it could happen, but I'm betting against it. Perhaps if they lose Opening Day 2008...

LF Soriano 2B Theriot/EPatt SS A-Rod 3B Ramirez 1B Lee RF Quentin CF Pie C Soto Not bad. Buying low isn't something the Cubs typically do...would be nice to try it for a change. absolutely unbelievable lineup I'll wet myself if that is the lineup, though I think DeRosa has earned a look at 2B. I agree that he has. I'd rather have DeRo off the bench though. He can fill in for A-Ram, Quentin, Theriot, and when A-Rod needs a rest Theriot can slide over to SS and DeRo take 2B. So he could start 3 or so games a week and then come off the bench and be used in double switches a lot. He could probably get 300-400 ABs. Man...I would love to see this happen. If we get an owner that is willing to dish out the cash to get A-Rod, I think 100% he'll be our opening day starter at shortstop. I'd much rather have DeRosa's OPS in the line-up everyday and have The Riot coming off the bench. Even with a new owner willing to put out the money, A-Rod leaving New York where is now a huge fan favorite and coming to the Cubs would have to be consider quite a bit less likely than 100%. The Yankees line-up would take a huge hit if he left. Wilson Betemit is no A-Rod. Steinbrenner is all about winning and letting A-Rod walk would be all about money. When was the last time the Yankees let money stop them from overpaying for someone? And when was the last time Scott Boras went with the smaller contract? The Cubs new owner would have to be willing to outbid George Steinbrenner, and, unless things have dramatic altered in the Bronx, the Yankees still have more money to spend than anyone else. While it would be an awesome line-up with Quentin and A-Rod filling in the blanks, I wouldn't count on either.

I don't have a problem with Theriot. I have a problem with being satisfied having 4 holes in the lineup. I'd be fine with Theriot, just as long as something happens to improve the lineup elsewhere. Just remember, the Cubs are 9th in the NL in OPS, they are, at best, an average lineup. Since it takes a lot more than average to be a great team, and I want the Cubs to be a great team, I'm not going to be happy with average, or worse, production. True, but SS is not the realistic upgrade. We all know Hendry is not going to get another MI. We need to focus on an OF. I don't buy much of the "realistic upgrade" talk. The Cubs have 4 holes, on the plus side, that leaves them with several options to find improvements. A good GM should be able to find something out there to improve what is 4 good sized holes in the lineup. I don't care where it comes from at this point, I just feel like they have to get it. Yes, why buy into realism? Okay, realistically, what pieces do the Cubs have (and can afford to give up without hurting the big league club) that other teams want? do you want to trade low on Veal? Gallagher? Not bad. What else? EPatt? OK. Is Soto really that highly thought of? Cedeno? I'd trade Colvin but what will he bring? So what do you see Sean Gallagher and Eric Patterson bringing in return? Or do you realistically think the Cubs will get a really good upgrade in CF by throwing Jacque Jones into that mix? You also called this a hot streak. Its not. The D-backs are on a hot streak. They've won 8 out of their last 9. Good for them. The Cubs have the best record in baseball since June 3rd. That's 50 games. A 50-game hot streak? Do they have holes? Of course. But you complain about the holes on this team like they shouldn't be there. Every team has holes. Let me say that again, EVERY TEAM HAS HOLES. And usually more than one. Heck, usually more than two. But we don't want usual. We want extraordinary, so I agree that Hendry should be trying to fill those holes. And he is. Saying that he is happy with what they got does not mean that he isn't trying to improve the team. The fact that that quote is what kicked off this thread is ridiculous. But trying to fill them isn't good enough. A good GM succeeds at improving his team. Has Hendry improved this team? Yes. Will he do it again at this trade deadline? Not sure. He has in the past. Doesn't look like a good market for doing so this season, though. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You don't believe in the realistic difficulties of this market. A good GM should just make great players appear out of thin air and give up next to nothing for them. Like Aramis Ramirez. Derrek Lee. Nomar Garciaparra...

Yes. He and Pie both left the game early a few days back and lots of people thought that a trade was coming, but they both were actually just injured. Kroeger more seriously than Pie apparently.

I'm going to keep pretending that I'm ignoring the Kerry Wood situation. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The big pitcher for me today is Kerry Wood. This will be his first back-to-back outing in his rehab stint. He's pitching against Low-A competition so whether he gets people out isn't really the point. It's more how he feels going two days in a row, how his velocity holds up and, most importantly, how he feels the next day. Go Kerry!

I'm not getting in the middle of your Marquis debate, just wanted to point out that since June 3rd, the day after Piniella's eruption and the day his suspension began, the Cubs have averaged 5.02 runs per game.

If you start counting after the games played on June 1st, you're correct. But if he meant since the beginning of June, then we need to add a loss. The Cubs were 17-11 in June and are 12-4 so far in July for a 29-15 record. Since June 3, the day after the one and only Piniella blow up so far this season and the first day of his suspension, the Cubs have posted a 29-13 record. That's a .690 winning percentage. Over their last 24 games (since June 22nd), the Cubs have gone 19-5. That's a .792 winning percentage. That's sick. Certainly unsustainable. Though the Cubs did finish June going 7-1 and in their first 8 post-all-star-break games have also gone 7-1, so who's to say what's unsustainable. :wink: To answer your question, before games started June 1st, the Cubs were 22-29. They have since gone 29-15 (.659). Seattle has gone 28-15(.651). Detroit is 27-14 (.6585). The Yankees are 26-17 (.605). And just for fun, the White Sox have gone 19-27 (.413). So no team has been hotter since June 1st by a half of a percentage point over Detroit. After losing the first two games in June, sending Piniella ballistic and completing a season high 6-game losing streak, the Cubs were in 5th place and 9 games under at 22-31. Decidedly the season's low point. They are now in 2nd place, 2 1/2 games out of first and 7 games over .500. This reinforces the notion that stats don't always tell you where you are going only where you been, and that baseball is a crazy game that's hard to accurately predict. Sometimes it's best to just sit back and see what unfolds. Here come the Cubs.

Giving up a potential starting 2nd baseman, for a decent reliever would be stupid. Relievers are a dime a dozen, but possible above average 2nd baseman are not as easy to find. Agreed. Though, I would want to read a recent scouting report on Patterson's defensive ability at 2B first.

Anyone else worried it could suddenly reappears as suddenly as it disappeared? Sorry to bring negativity into this thread. I read that and thought the same thing. Pitching arms are funny. I remember a story about Satchel Paige, the exact opposite of Kerry Wood, who pitched into his late 40s, where Satch had horrible pain in his arm and told his wife he was thinking of retiring and told his manager that he wouldn't be able to go for his next start and then woke up the next day and never felt better. Wood, though, while I'm pulling for him, I need to see more than a handful of innings in Mesa. I say, if he is going good right now, the Cubs might as well bring him up to the bigs as soon as possible 'cause you never know how long this is going to last.

Excellent post. Sums up my thoughts exactly. I predicted that Marquis would likely finish the season with an ERA around 4.50. When he got off to his hot start, I figured he would likely have a poor second half like he did last year and that seems to be playing out. Having Greinke on the roster would give the Cubs a 23 year old starter with great minor league pedigree who could step in for Marquis if he implodes. The problem is, the price will likely be pretty steep. Wave off on trading for relievers. The Cubs have plenty of options with Wood and Guzman coming back. Dempster is returning which means that Petrick and Gallagher will also be in reserve.